I fondly remember my glory days as a flag football star in my 10th grade gym class. Our teacher, Coach Boggs, knew that our co-ed games could easily devolve into a bunch of boys engaging in rough-and-tumble play that excluded the girls, so he altered the rules of the game. If a boy scored a touchdown, it was worth the usual 6 points. But if a girl scored a touchdown, it was worth 12 points.

Eager to win, the boys on my team devised plays to include us girls and it wasn’t long before their inclusivity paid off. You see, even though I’d never played football before, I understood the game. (I’d been an ardent football fan since 8th grade when I discovered that hot hot HOT guys like Tony Gonzalez played football for nearby Cal.) Plus, I’d been an athlete since I was 5, and had developed solid hand-eye coordination as a volleyball, basketball and softball player. So by the end of our first game, the boys realized that I could run, catch, and score as well as they could. And from that point on, all plays went through me and were designed to take full advantage of my strengths. I was the centerpiece of the offense and everyone else played supporting roles.

This was a blazing success, partly because we had the element of surprise on our side. The boys on the other teams had scoffed at Coach Boggs’ scoring rules and had continued to exclude the girls on their team. So they were shocked to see me, a girl, playing a central role in our offense. Before they could get their bearings, I had already scored 3 touchdowns and racked up 36 points. Game over. My teammates called me their secret weapon and did everything they could to protect me, coddle me, and keep me happy. Like I said, those were my glory days. (I peaked early.)[i]

WHITE MEN ARE NOT THE SECRET WEAPON…

Those of us who understand issues of power and privilege know that white men are the Princes of Privilege in our society. No group has more power, access, voice or influence than white men. They decide who gets a seat at their power table and they set the societal standards for what is acceptable, normal, fair, beautiful, valuable, and newsworthy. (Unfortunately, this rings true in the Church too.) As a result, social justice advocates logically view white men as important stakeholders in the fight for justice. Since white men hold the power, it makes strategic sense to try to convince white men to re-allocate their power, use their power to create space for diverse voices, and significantly participate in the fight for justice. I don’t disagree with the logic behind this approach, but if we’re not careful, we can overestimate the importance of white men in the fight for justice.

Reconcilers can start to treat white men as if they’re the secret weapon to dismantling injustice. If we just get one of them on our team, we’ll win. If white men talk to other white men and convince them to check their privilege, we’ll win. If white men (rather than people of color) lead the discussion on racism, the other team won’t see it coming, and we’ll win. If white men tell the stories of the oppressed, people will listen and we’ll win. If white men make injustice an urgent issue, people will pay attention and we’ll win. Their touchdowns are worth twice as many points.

So white men become the centerpiece of the offense and everyone else takes on supporting roles. Accordingly, we design all of our plays with them in mind, and we protect them and coddle them and do everything we can to keep them happy.

If they’re not comfortable with a social justice plan, we scrap it.

If they’re not ready to move forward just yet, we slow down.

If they want to go into a cross-cultural ministry setting, we let them go (even if they’re not ready and their well-intentioned interactions will be tainted by colonialism).

If they’re feeling angst-y, we talk them through it (even though listening to their privileged angst is painful for us).

If they remain unconvinced and unrepentant, we wonder what we’re doing wrong, we lose sleep, and we lose hope.

In the end, our earnest and logical efforts to include white men in our social justice causes often end up making it all about them. In doing so, we contribute to and uphold a white male industrial complex that maintains the unequal power balances that we originally set out to address.

…BUT JESUS IS

Logic says that white men are the secret weapon, the key to dismantling unjust power structures in the church and beyond. Heck, even research[ii] suggests that effective social justice movements require strong leadership from the people in power (e.g., white men). Of course it’s logical to urge white men and other powerful people to join the fight for justice. Further, from a theological standpoint, it’s important to urge white men to join the fight for justice because the people of God (all of us) are called to be a just people and because God hates oppression. (I also think that white men should join the fight for justice for their own good, but that’s another blog post.)

I rejoice when white men wake up to the reality of oppression and choose to fight against it. But in the end, whether or not a white man (or any other powerful person) joins the cause (or stays committed to the cause) doesn’t make or break my day. I don’t give them that much power.

My hopes for a just world don’t rest on the white man’s shoulders. My hope is in Jesus and in the power of his death and resurrection.

The truth is that the battle for justice won’t be won when white men finally join the fight. The battle was already won on the cross. Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is at hand. It’s here. It’s happening. It’s already been set in motion. We’re inevitably moving toward a world that reflects the prophetic reality of the resurrection. Justice will be done. All things will be made new. And Jesus graciously invites all of us to partner with him in that movement. We all can play a crucial role. But let’s never forget that Jesus is the secret weapon. Jesus has already determined the outcome of this battle and he will use whoever is willing to accomplish his plan. The Kingdom of God is at hand, whether white men participate or not.

A DIFFERENT STRATEGY

The white male industrial complex keeps people’s eyes on white men, what they need and what they’re thinking and feeling. So rather than contributing to the white male industrial complex and focusing most/all of our justice efforts on convincing and engaging white men, I propose a different strategy, that involves two parts:

Turn toward the Holy Spirit – As Christian reconcilers, we must listen to and wait on the Spirit of Pentecost. A few of years ago, I taught a reconciliation class at a seminary. I had 17 students; all were white and 14 were male. 11 of the white male students were defiantly opposed to taking the class. They didn’t think that reconciliation and justice issues were relevant to their ministry goals and they had no problem telling me so. At the first class, I noticed that many had a negative and visceral reaction to the idea of white male privilege. This was a tough crowd and I knew that my winsomeness, eloquence and strategic teaching weren’t going to cut it. I needed Jesus’ power and the Holy Spirit’s wisdom to effectively teach this class. I needed to know what to say, how to say it and when to say it. I needed to trust God to transform and soften these men’s hearts. So I decided to spend as much time praying for the class as I did prepping for it. Thanks be to God, my prayers were answered! Week after week I saw hearts softening and repenting and growing. White men may be the Princes of Privilege, but the Lord holds the king’s heart in his hand.

As Christian reconcilers, we need to go beyond logic and strategic organizing. We need to ask the Holy Spirit who to pray for, who to talk to, when to speak hard truth, when to turn the other cheek, when to pick a fight, when to walk away from a fight, when to start praying for someone, when to stop praying for someone, when to give voice to the privileged, when to silence the privileged (and risk their retaliation), when to pay attention to the powerful, when to ignore the powerful, when to dig your heels in and refuse to give up, and when to focus our efforts elsewhere. We need to ask the Holy Spirit to show us where the good soil is and where the hard ground is. And we need to ask the Holy Spirit to help us sow into the good soil and give us the discipline to walk away from the hard ground, trusting that God will send rain when the time is right. We need to ask the Holy Spirit when to move forward with a justice plan and when to slow down. And we need to ask the Holy Spirit to help us to trust that the Kingdom of God is at hand, even when all hells seems to break loose when we follow the Holy Spirit’s guidance rather than conform to the white male industrial complex. The Holy Spirit should guide and protect our strategic movement, not white men or anyone else.

Turn toward the oppressed –If we’re following Jesus’ Spirit, it will lead us to prioritize the needs and perspective of the oppressed over the needs and perspective of the privileged. The white male industrial complex keeps people’s eyes on white men, but any victory that Jesus leads will significantly involve the oppressed. As such, the Christian reconciler’s eyes should follow Jesus’ gaze to the oppressed – and all social justice efforts should be focused on the oppressed, should benefit the oppressed, and should empower the oppressed.

This summer, I’ve been studying The Seven Signs in the Gospel of John with some of my friends. More than anything else, I’ve been struck by how much Jesus’ miraculous signs involve the oppressed. I think I’ll write a blog post about this when we’re done studying all 7 signs. For now I’ll just say that Jesus makes a point of revealing his character and power to the oppressed first. It seems that Jesus’ plays went through the oppressed and were designed show them who he really was. It’s the women, slaves, and the sick (and not the privileged) who got an insider’s glimpse into who Jesus really is and got to participate in his jaw-dropping miracles. Jesus was the centerpiece of an offense that significantly involved oppressed people. I like the sound of that.

[i] By the way, our efforts were fruitful. We were the league champions that year — which meant nothing and everything at the same time.

[ii] See chapter 9 of Disunity in Christ for a longer discussion of this.

It’s interesting for me to think about white men as the “secret weapon” as the social justice-minded equivalent of the evangelism approach that was popularized by Young Life. If we can “win” the cool, popular kids in a school over to the gospel, then they can use their social capital to win the entire school. The cool, popular kids were the secret weapon, even if the cliquish, stratified, social hierarchy that gave them their privileged position was antithetical to so many of the values that are inherent in the gospel–which ultimately cheapened the gospel and commodified it. Likewise, focusing on white men as the “secret weapon” in social justice efforts ultimately undermines the social change that it seeks to alleviate.

It’s tempting to give into because there are short-term, pragmatics at stake that make life easier for oppressed people. I’ve felt this a lot in some of my work in immigration advocacy. Some of the “strategies” and the language about immigrants that is tossed around by politicians and other would-be allies is sometimes bristling and fundamentally demeaning, but you oftentimes want to simply turn the other cheek because small gains, albeit palliative seem better than no gains at all. Then again, rejecting the demeaning language and degradation of personhood is ironically a way of exerting one’s agency and reclaiming the personhood that has been stolen from you. In that sense, maybe it is “progress” even if the oppressive environment around you hasn’t changed.

I’ve been a YL leader for a long time and I’m familiar with what you’re talking about. You’re right, it’s a “top down” approach to influencing, and it’s ultimately dishonoring to all parties involved and less-than-faithful to the Gospel. I know that this is an old policy (e.g., I’ve never seen it practiced in my 10-ish years as a volunteer), so I hope it’s dying out. Great point, Kurt. Thanks for bringing it up!

this is SO true and important. i’ve experienced similar dynamics within feminism (and what the above commenter describes in youth ministry) and any sort of emphasis on convincing the powerful is just so backwards and counterproductive to the principles of liberation or the Kingdom of God.

so grateful for you work and witness, christena. you really are the secret weapon:)

Yes! Let the powerful (the privileged, the beautiful, the rich, the whole, the “natural” leaders, the influencers, etc) more and more be witnesses, instead of leaders and facilitators, to the liberation that comes “from above”, from the margins in, instead of from the center to the margins as is the way of the world. Then they will know that the Kingdom of God has come upon them.

YES YES YES. I’ve often seen conversations around race & justice watered down or sugar coated as not to offend the privileged. POC have the burden of not being too angry, too passionate, too quick to cry racism, too ANYTHING or else we might scare away white allies. A lot of conversations I see get re-centered on the feelings of the privileged rather than the injustice suffered by the not-so-privileged.

This is such an important conversation, Christena. I hope people are listening.

Thanks, Alyssa. I’m starting to begin conversations around these issues by focusing on the oppressed. Privileged folks don’t get to have the conversation on their terms. We’re doing it on Jesus’ terms and I’m trusting the Holy Spirit to run interference. So far, it’s been fruitful!

I’ve found it helpful to view this issue as a co-dependent dynamic. When people are in a co-dependent relationship, they lose sight entirely of what is normal, reasonable and healthy. Normal, reasonable and healthy get defined as whatever the dominant party says they are. The less powerful party will often respond by trying to get the dominant party to adjust normal, reasonable and healthy to something which is more respectful and mutually beneficial. But this still grants the dominant party the right and power to decree what normal, reasonable and healthy is. Often, even when the dominant party is willing to change, the less powerful party ends up being held hostage to the dominant party’s demands to be convinced and unwillingness to do more than make concessions. The only real solution is to disrupt the co-dependent dynamic altogether.

One of the things I adore about the healthy African-American Christians I have known is that they have figured out the way out of this unhealthy dynamic and are unshakable in their commitment to it. “We learned to love ourselves” is their answer to the problem. They still love the other, but having learned to love themselves fiercely and unapologetically means they have taken back their power from those who don’t yet know how to love.

The answer to the co-dependent dynamic really is to stand firm in what is good and true and not take on the struggles of the other as your own. You can speak to those struggles and love people where they are. But ultimately, as you say, a changed heart is for each person and the Holy Spirit to create together. I’ll bet the great cloud of witnesses enjoyed watching that class on reconciliation, BTW. It was probably a sight to behold from the vantage point of heaven!

Thanks for this interesting idea, Rebecca. I think that the co-dependent analogy is an interesting one. I’m so glad that you’ve encountered strong African-Americans who have wrangled themselves free. I still find it sad/disappointing that the wrangling is necessary in the first place, and that the oppressed have to do the work of fighting for their own emotional freedom (while also fighting to freedom on a societal level). But I do think that co-dependency often reveals an imbalanced power dynamic, so I think that thinking in terms of co-dependency can shed much-needed light on that issue. Thanks!

This so rings true with my discomfort in putting a view out there as an “ally” trying to “speak for those whose voice is marginalized.” When it comes to race stuff I feel a lot better connected to my brothers and sisters when I listen for others’ voices and encourage people in appreciating the voice of others as they live out that of God within them in a different context. I have been blessed to have some older brothers and sisters in the faith who mentored me that come from many different cultural backgrounds and taught me the value of listen to perspectives that make me uncomfortable, that challenge my comfort and what it is built on. I believe that your voice and the voice of others who are marginalized need my ears more than my promotion.

Your words about the Holy Spirit are convicting and powerful. Ive found that the more Progressive we get the less we are willing to cling to the supernatural character of the Spirit’s work. God help us rely on your spirit and not our strategies. Thank you Christena!

Thank you so much for helping Christians focus our attention around who God is and what God has done for us while courageously calling out the unjust social reality in which so many people live. As a white male, part of me wants to be offended by blog posts like this, even though I agree with everything you share here and have been working cross culturally with vulnerable populations for over a decade! Thats probably the point, that God’s truth ALWAYS offends those who benefit from power structures. Thank you for your voice and courage!

Christena, as a white man who probably likes to talk about his passion for God’s kingdom and social justice way too much… thank you so much for this post.

I agree with your final point about the “turn toward the oppressed.” It reminded me of Costas’ notion of following Jesus “outside the gate.”

But, I wanted to ask you about something that I heard not too long ago from Jay Pathak that seems to challenge/balance(?) this perspective. Of course, it’s from the life of the apostle Paul, specifically his calling in Acts 9:15. Jesus appears to Ananias in a vision and describes Paul (Saul at this point) as “an instrument whom I have chosen to bring my name before Gentiles **and kings** and before the people of Israel.” Pathak emphasized the part about “and kings” to make a point about a church’s role in influencing people in power such as elected officials. Thinking back over Paul’s life, he does seem to be talking to people in power fairly often (please correct me here if I’m mistaken).

So, what do you think? What do we do with Paul’s ministry (as a Jewish-Roman citizen) toward Roman power-brokers?

Here’s my take: I don’t think Paul’s a great role model for reconcilers; I think Jesus is a much better one. Some of the best reconciliation *theology* comes from Paul, but the best reconciliation *examples” come from Jesus’ life leading up to and culminating in the reconciling work of the cross. Paul waxed poetic about “all being one” etc., but based on Scripture, it seems that he mostly urged other people to actually live that out. From my understanding, he had a bit of a “my way or the highway” personality that is good for building movements, but less good for building/sustaining community. I think that people who are especially called to be reconcilers should model Jesus’ ministry and example.

Also, I’d add that part of taking a Pauline approach (e.g., ministering to the powerful in society) involves speaking truth to power — and using your influence to show the powerful that the world doesn’t revolve around them. This post was about de-centering the powerful (e.g., white men). I believe that Paul tried to do that in his ministry (often to his own detriment), but I don’t think that many of today’s Christian leaders (who interact with the powerful) are doing that.

I guess I don’t feel the need to downplay Paul’s “role model” status quite so much. Even in Acts, the outworking of Paul’s call to “take Jesus’ name before kings” looked nothing like what we might assume based on some models of “evangelism”…i.e. make friends with the powerful and attempt to convince them in a slow and metered fashion to use their power for good. The powerful didn’t have a privileged place in Paul’s ministry, certainly not in his theology (thinking 1 Corinthians), but neither in his practice. My own reading of his writings and the writings about him would suggest that he spent significantly more time among the humble and the powerless. And even his movement toward the powerful (which was gained only by his willingness to remain imprisoned for a long period of time, and which consisted of his testifying before them as a prisoner of the Roman state) sounds little, to me, like an attempt to coddle them in the hope that they’ll come around to Paul’s side.

So I suppose what I’m getting at is that I think there are things to be learned from the example of Paul in regard to the practice of reconciliation…maybe perhaps more for the pastor than the prophet?

Thank you, Christena; well said. All things considered, white men are privileged. But not all white men equally. White? Then distinctions are made based on other factors. And thus power, the world’s brand of power, is assigned. The white male industrial complex is just one part of a larger power complex.

True. Some white men have more privilege than others. But the combination of being white and male makes white men very privileged relative to other race/gender groups regardless of other factors like class, sexuality, etc.

Thank you for this – and like many said, your words about the Holy Spirit are an important part of the dynamic that is often overlooked or casually tossed in. Thank you for placing them prominently and giving me something to chew on.

Over the past decade or so, I’ve been reading articles and books on the topic of justice by Nicholas Wolterstorff (an excellent non-academic understanding is given in Wolterstorff, 2013, “Journey Toward Justice,” Baker Academic). And find his arguments winsome. From these juxtaposed with my experiences and ideas I offer the following.

I think many many Christians (especially the more socially conservative evangelical types) have a partial misunderstanding of Jesus’ “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” [Jn 13:34]. “Love” is not a new commandment, else how would the expert in the law already know the answer to his own question? [see Luke 10:25-28; Parable of the Good Samaritan]. We know this by reading Deut 6:1-9, especially verse 5, and Lev 19:18b, which likely is a summary of verses 9-18a. Maybe what is new is the “as I have loved you” part. What’s new seems to be Christ’s unswerving commitment to human dignity (upholding it for those who society puts down, and calling out/pulling down those who fail to do this) and a willingness to forgive before being asked [see, for example, Mt 18:22 and Rom 5:8].

If love is not completely new, then love must include justice (primary–upholding the dignity of all [e.g., sufficient income to engage in proper self-determination, employment which allows for creativity and responsibility, equal dignity in the eyes of the beholder, access to high quality education] and secondary–various retributions). Jesus says to forgive seventy times seven, and this has a bearing on retributive justice. But justice in both the OT and NT is really about primary justice. Too many of us Christians, of the upper-middle class, simply fail to love (uphold primary justice) all and hold accountable Christians in positions of power to do just this. Instead, we have interpreted “love” to mean do no active harm (nicely fulfilled by both the Priest and Levite in the Good Samaritan Parable) and generally be a nice person. Love has been misinterpreted as benevolence–something optional and which keeps the focus on the alleged good and good intentions of the benefactor. Benevolence justifies our “vacationary” and “voluntourist” trips. I think God prefers the focus to be on the extent to which the marginalized are included, the extent to which primary justice is upheld. This shifts our focus off of ourselves and our notions of what counts for love (often little more than “good motives”).

Reconciliation is about justice in love. It is about “shalom,” a word I am becoming somewhat hesitant to use because it has more recently become a go to word as a way of baptizing our ideas, actions and attitudes. Shalom is about peace, justice and the enjoyment of all relationships (God, self, others, nature).

So, a most definite “yes” to the Holy Spirit. And also, a more biblical understanding of love. Something which all Christians need to hear and live. And maybe most especially upper-middle class, white males :), like me

So far, since the advent of the “liberal messiah” Barry Soereto, a/k/a Barry Hussein Obama, we’ve seen the result of the LIBERAL SOCIALISTS’ DIVERSITY fall flat on it’s ass……”DIVERSITY” proved to be nothing but a phony drummed up rallying cry for that FAILED social just scam……diversity proved to be a TOTAL FAILURE…..

Thank you for your insightful perspective, Christena. One of my biggest struggles when I used to teach was the defensiveness around privilege and structural injustice. It would discourage me so deeply. I appreciate this reminder that God has already won and that only God has the power to soften hearts and call for repentance and restoration. I need to remember to pray for that! Thank you.

I feel new to this conversation but I am so glad I’m gaining awareness of this topic. I suppose it will take me sometime to dismantle the things in my mind that are there because I am a ‘Prince of Privilege’. But I suppose awareness is where it all starts. Any resources you recommend to further explore this I would surely eat up.
May God have mercy on my ego based cynicism that has hung like a bad relative for years while others aren’t so lucky to have an automatic audience or a ticket to the show.

Christena, thanks very much for your thoughts. I find myself “amening” much of what you’re saying. I’m right there with you in regard to your comments about the role of the Spirit and the finished/finishing work of Jesus. Continuing to court the favor of the powerful on behalf of the powerless indicates, to me, an anguishing alienation from the heart of the message and witness of Jesus and is evidence of a misplaced hope. Thank you for sharing your convictions in this regard!

If you’d allow me to dialogue with you a bit, I’d like to bring up something that sticks in my mind and heart as I read your analysis – that is, the benefit and appropriateness of continuing to to use the fantasy of “whiteness” as a meaningful category in the pursuit of Jesus-shaped reconciliation and justice. Two things make this question salient for me.

The first is the work of Dr. Willie James Jennings at Duke. I recently finished his book “The Christian Imagination” and found myself deeply convinced by his concern that the construct of whiteness has deeply damaged everyone and everything it has touched (in the church and in the world at large), both those who have taken hold of it for their own benefit and those who’ve suffered at their hands. Convinced by his reasoning, I question any approach toward reconciliation that would seek to benefit from the continued use of this fantasy rather than seeking to deconstruct it as a part of the larger work of working for the Beloved Community.

The second is my own relationships. I realize that in some sense it is convenient to use conjure the idea of the “privileged white male”. And I recognize that this is convenient because it certainly includes within it the people we mean to be talking about…namely those men of mixed European ancestry who, by a variety of factors including lineage, economic status, education, and geographical location, do hold an intractable, disproportionate advantage and influence. But we also realize that the category “privileged white male” includes many who don’t fit. Like my friend Rom, who will never be courted for the benefit of his “influence”. Instead people will think about the most polite way they can refuse his offer to mow their lawn when he knocks on their door today. We could spend time arguing that Rom actually does fit…that if someone of color, or a woman, in his same position (which is admittedly a really low position) would have even less influence and power than him…if such were possible. But what does that do for Rom? Rom…who is loved by God with reckless abandon and who has a special place in the Kingdom (if we believe the author of James)? In our desire to quickly frame an argument, our imprecision, our continued use of a concept we all know is really inaccurate and ultimately almost meaningless, my friend gets rolled over and rolled up with the CEO of Google and various University presidents.

And that makes me as disappointed and frustrated as our continued courting of the powerful in the name of the pragmatic concern that “it will produce the results we are looking for, at least kind of.” It’s really very similar, in my mind. So we can keep using the idea of the privileged white male while we work for justice and reconciliation, acknowledging that in doing so we’re harming vulnerable people (that is my contention at least), or we can dream and scheme about a better way. Can we work and write for justice and reconciliation AND deconstruct whiteness? Or do we need to hang on to it because to let it go, to blow it up, would make it harder to talk about what we want to talk about? Is there a more loving way?

I wonder if toppling the white male industrial complex begins, or at least includes, deconstructing the whole concept of “whiteness” as an integral part of the work. If Jennings is correct, to do so would be, perhaps, a more loving way forward…truly working to set EVERYONE free from the baggage and alienation of a powerful fantasy.

Again, I sincerely appreciate your writing here and would love to hear more about your thoughts on this.

Thanks for your thoughts, Rob. First, can I just say that I ADORE Dr. Willie Jennings?

I haven’t heard Dr. Jennings talk about whiteness but based on your description, I don’t think I disagree with him. Whiteness IS a damaging social construct. I think it’s important to deconstruct it. (And by deconstruct it, I mean illuminate the social – e.g., not biological – forces that have contributed to its power and our understanding of it.) But I think it’s important to deconstruct blackness and Asian-ness too — because all race is social constructed and ultimately false. I wouldn’t want to deconstruct whiteness without also deconstructing the other races in the same breath because then the focal point becomes white people again. That’s my concern about deconstructing whiteness. I only ever hear (white) people advocating for the deconstruction of whiteness — and not any of the other races. This concerns me.

I think that deconstruction conversations can and should happen, but they should happen after all conversation partners are aware of the damaging effects of race/racism. Unfortunately, the average white American Christian doesn’t even believe that racism is much of a problem any more. To go straight to deconstruction would be a mistake, in my opinion. Lament should precede renewal/hope.

Thanks for sharing about your friend Rom. As much as I have compassion for your friend Rom, I think that it’s important for this particular conversation on racial/gender reconciliation to stay focused on the women and people of color who are oppressed relative to Rom and all other white men. Other factors like class, ability, sexuality, etc are important but they shouldn’t detract from the conversations about race and gender. I don’t think it’s dishonoring to your friend Rom to talk about how his life outcomes, no matter how awful they are, are still better than they would be if he were female or a person of color – or both. It’s simply stating the truth. Now, issues of injustice that affect Rom’s life absolutely need to be addressed. Rom is created in the image of God and should be honored by the Church and society. And as an all-around justice person, I’d be one of the first people to stand in solidarity with someone like Rom. But it’s important for us to recognize that there are various forms of oppression and privilege and for many (like Rom) it’s a mixed bag. And Rom’s not off the hook — even he needs to take responsibility for the privilege that he does possess as a white male and seek to make things right in our unequal world.

I’m entirely with you that deconstructing “whiteness” is only ultimately profitable if we’re deconstructing the entire concept of race (“blackness”, Asian-ness, etc.). To attempt the one without the others would be irresponsible at best. I certainly don’t mean to suggest by my comments that one should happen without the others…it’s simply that your article focuses on the “white male industrial complex”. So please count me as a white person who is heartily behind the deconstruction of blackness and Asian-ness and race as a whole. I’m in agreement with Jennings that holding to race as a primary indicator of personhood displaces us from the things and places and people and cultures that actually imbue our lives with meaning…and that holds true for everyone, certainly not just for “white” folks.

You bring up a very interesting point about the order within these types of conversation should happen. And while I understand the logic of it, I sincerely wonder if such a neat and tidy agenda is really the best way forward in every instance. I’m the father of two “white” girls, 5 and 7 years old. Should I spend my time trying to expose to them the current realities of racism (something I could only accomplish be teaching them, or at least insinuating to them, that race is a meaningful category), only to then attempt (after they’re considerably older, probably) that racial categorization is actually entirely meaningless and quite harmful? Please don’t read any amount of antagonism into those comments. This is something I genuinely wonder about and would love your input on. It seems to me that if we could get everyone on the planet in a room and were able to convince them to agree simultaneously that racism is still an issue, that would be one thing (a very good thing, don’t get me wrong!). But that’s not going to happen. Can we perhaps have these conversations simultaneously, or even, as you suggest in your writing, be open to the Holy Spirit’s promptings regarding which course of action/discussion would actually be most profitable in any particular situation? Lament should precede hope…but is it possible that God might be calling some of us to bear the burden of that lament disproportionately (with the intimacy and power that comes from knowing our Savior bears it with us) as we wait for the Kingdom-fully-come, particularly if in so doing we are paving the path toward a community within which that kind of lament is no longer needed (because we’ve become to see each other in the way of the Kingdom)?

Regarding Rom…I don’t bring him up as an attempt to suggest that claims of oppression by women and people of color are fallacious. I grant without qualification that, given our particular neighborhood, light-skinned Rom is better of than would be dark-skinned Rom…no argument there at all. And I’m sincerely not attempting to turn a conversation about women and people of color into a conversation about white men (I guess I read your original post as being primarily about the place of white men in the work for justice…and so a conversation within which Rom, as a white man, is a meaningful example). I bring him up because in the Church of Jesus, it seems to me that we should be able to find ways speaking about the evils of oppression and systematized inequality that don’t bowl over objectively, deeply vulnerable people, coupling them together with folks they have almost nothing in common with, minus their genitalia and the relative lightness of their skin, whatever their relative level of privilege might be. In this particular instance, I personally don’t think that does Rom any good…and as a Christian that’s something I’m compelled to seek.

I suppose that’s one reason I want to find a middle way between an emphasis on individual responsibility/situations and the analysis of “systems”. It seems to me that Christian love demands it…submitting our system-thinking, in compassion, to the nitty-gritty reality of flesh and blood people as their lives impinge on ours on the road from Jericho to Jerusalem.

Anyway, thank you very much for responding and for allowing me to work through my own thoughts here. Your thoughts give me much to ponder and are certainly helping me to sharpen my thinking and to ask good questions. And I’d be remiss not to say that I’m certain, and thankful, that we share more in common than not. It’s been a gift to be the recipient of your time and attention. Thank you.

I feel compelled to clarify that when I say, “God might be calling some of us to bear the burden of that lament disproportionately” I certainly do NOT mean “black folks” or any other group of disenfranchised people in total. I mean instead those of us followers of Jesus who, as gift and grace, have been particularly called to the burden and made especially aware of its implications, whatever our social status.